sf says...

"OMG, our beloved Emperor is gone! (sorta') But don't worry: the Democrats are fanning the flames of crazy, so it's just a matter of time before they run things again."

Sunday, January 30

"The law doesn't mean what it says--unless we want it to"

If you don't live in Illinois, the race for the office of mayor of Chicago probably hasn't been on your radar. Let me update you:

Rahm Emmanuel, the former chief of staff for Obama, wants the position. Tiny, tiny problem: He's been living in Washington for the past two years--and as it happens, Chicago has a thing called an "ordinance" on its books that says you can't be mayor unless you've lived in Chicago for the past 12 months.

The state court of appeals ruled that the ordinance meant what it said, and thus that he was not eligible to hold the office. However, the case was instantly taken up by the state's supreme court, which reversed the court of appeals and put him back on the ballot.

Now, I have no idea whether Rahm is the worst candidate or the best, but that's beside the point. Either the city ordinance is valid-- in which case one would expect it to be enforced uniformly--or it's not.

By saying, in effect, that the longstanding city ordinance doesn't mean what it says, and doesn't bar him from serving as mayor, the IL supreme court has said in effect, Cities and towns may write what they think is a very clear and plain law, but no matter how short or clear or simple it is, we can overrule it by our decree if we don't like its effects in a particular case. But if, in some other case, we like its effects, we'll rule that it's valid and means what it clearly says.

Does this surprise or shock you? Silly person! How could you expect anything else? After all, consider that the federal courts have ruled that no U.S. citizen has the legal standing to even bring a lawsuit to examine the question of whether Obama meets the Constitutional requirement to be president.

If the courts say no U.S. citizen has legal standing to sue to get the facts out on so fundamental and obviously crucial an issue, how can it be claimed that the rule of law has any meaning?

So now that the concepts of "rule of law" and "conforming to Constitutional provisions" have been thoroughly discredited, if some level of government passes a law taking away something you really care about--your right to free speech or self-defense or whatever--and you were confident the Courts would rule against it, don't bother complaining to me.

Post-script: It's worth noting that Emanuel is a heavy favorite to win. What does that say about how most Chicagoans view the concept of "equal enforcement of the law for all"?

Can freedom and democracy coexist with radical Islam?

A crucial debate is taking place among U.S. bloggers, commenters and pundits as to whether we (and other western nations) can ever coexist with "Islam" in the long haul.

Those in the "coexistence is possible" camp make several points to support their conclusion. First is that the West has had many instances of conquest-as-policy, but we now seem to be past that. Thus even if we find Muslims expressing a desire to conquer the world, it wouldn't be significant.

A second argument is that we do see a couple of Islamic nations that seem to be open and fairly tolerant. This proves (so the argument goes) that Islam can coexist with a democratic, tolerant society.

A third argument is that what conservatives see as "radical Islam" is simply misunderstanding or mis-translation.

A fourth is that even if what the radical imams and their followers say and write is perfectly translated and understand, these utterances do not represent "real" Islam, so we shouldn't give any weight to them, or be alarmed.

A related point is that because the "kill Jews and infidels" faction is a minority, eventually they'll be cooled by the larger number of "moderate" Muslims.

Certainly there are some blots on western cultures and points of encouragement in a few Islamic nations, which support the "don't worry, we can coexist" side.

But I'm skeptical, for several reasons.

Does anyone recall seeing the photo of the Muz demonstrator in London carrying the sign "To hell with democracy"? Another said "To hell with freedom." Or the imam who said "Democracy is fundamentally incompatible with Islam"?

Assuming these pics were genuine, what we have here is: A religion that sees democracy and freedom as bad things. And sees its divine mission as converting or subjugating all non-Muslims. And routinely kills even other Muslims who the most radical imams deem insufficiently devout in these areas.

Bottom line--my opinion, anyway--is that radical Muslims will eventually kill any moderates brave enough to stand up to them. Recent example: the murder of the governor of the Pakistani province who criticized the Pak law that calls for executing people convicted of "blasphemy against Islam."

By their own signs and words, radical Muslims have declared that the fundamental western concepts of freedom and democracy are their enemy. Unless (by some literal miracle) these radicals decide that Islam no longer contains these tenets, the only way we can coexist with them is by doing as they demand--either convert or submit and pay of the infidel tax.

If those two choices are acceptable to you, you and I are no longer countrymen.

One can only imagine the horrified gasps in the control room after that one. And sure enough, about 20 seconds later--in the middle of a totally different point--Matthews interjected into the middle of a totally unrelated sentence, "--the Suez canal."

Fortunately it happened on MSNBC so only two dozen people in the country saw it.

Now, it's obvious to all of us that everyone has brain hiccups like this. But can you imagine the reaction from the MFM if, say, Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney said *exactly* the same thing?

The MFM are a pack of hypocritical rat-bastards. Period.

Oh, and let me apologize to literal rat-bastards everywhere for the libelous comparison.

Wednesday, January 26

WH press corps jumps to their feet for O, stayed seated for W

Someone noticed that when Obama dropped in unannounced to one of the regular WH press conferences, all the reporters stood up--the customary sign of respect when the president enters the room. But just a year earlier, when President George W. Bush made the same drop-in, not one of the reporters stood.

Of course I expect most Democrats will claim this story is a lie invented by conservatives to damage the credibility of the so-called "mainstream media." And to a liberal, that's a pretty reasonable assumption. After all, the *media* constantly lie to damage conservatives (example: blaming the Arizona shooting on a right-wing crazy who was responding to the use of cross-hairs in a web posting on Sarah Palin's site) so naturally they believe conservatives must do the same thing, right?

Tuesday, January 25

"Rahm is a natural-born Chicagoan"--prezident

Once again, life imitates fraud:

Obama wants Rahm back on ballotJanuary 25, 2011

President Barack Obama wants former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel to stay on the Chicago mayoral ballot, a top presidential confidante said Tuesday after an appellate court ruled he hadn't met a one-year residency requirement.

“The president believes Rahm is eligible and will make a terrific mayor," said Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to Obama and fellow Chicagoan.

"The president encouraged Rahm to submit some sort of affidavit--maybe something like a birth certificate--that would prove he's eligible to be mayor."

"The president believes Rahm is the best candidate, so the city should put his name on the ballot even if, hypothetically, he didn't meet the residency requirement. After all, some of our greatest, most amazing leaders may not always have met some tiny, insignificant requirement to hold an office, and it's just not fair to use that trivial point to keep them from running. In fact, it would be racist to do so. At least it would be racist under most conditions."

A clerk in the Cook County (Chicago) tax office said he had personally seen records showing that Emanuel had lived in Chicago during the past year. However, he was unable to release these without Emanuel's permission. Emanuel's spokesman said Emanuel had tried to contact the official to get the records released but so far had been unable to find his telephone number.

The governor of Illinois promised to get to the bottom of the controversy once and for all. His office later said he was unable to find the actual records, but had seen "several hand-written notations referring to Rahm Emanuel and Chicago." The governor said he was personally satisfied that this had settled the issue and Emanuel could run.

The debate over Emanuel’s eligibility hinges on the nearly two years Emanuel spent working in the Obama White House and the fact that he rented out his Chicago house.

Sunday, January 23

Chinese leader insults Obama; Did WH know?

On Jan. 19th the Obama administration hosted a "state dinner" honoring the visit of the chairman of China's communist party, Hu Jintao.

Part of the evening included entertainment, and one of the artists was a world-famous Chinese pianist (apparently currently living in NYC) named Lang Lang. A few minutes into his set, the pianist played a song from an anti-American propaganda movie about the Korean war. Apparently this song is as familiar to Chinese (and of course North Koreans) as any Hollywood movie theme would be to Americans, and the song has been a leading piece of anti-American propaganda by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) for decades.

Okay, so a Chinese pianist got in an inside-joke dig at the U.S. at a state dinner in our own White House, in which we were honoring their leader. Big deal--it's hard to predict what an "artist" will do on stage, right?

But wait--it gets interesting: Did the Chinese delegation know this was planned? Let's put it this way: If you believe they didn't, run along and play with the kiddies while the adults talk. I mean really... being that naive can get you killed.

Okay, you want proof? In an interview broadcast on a flagship Chinese TV station Lang is quoted as saying that he chose the piece, and about its significance and how playing the piece at the White House dinner asserted how "formidable" China is.

The interview in question was broadcast just before the dinner in Washington. It was taped, apparently several days earlier.

Chinese TV stations are staffed almost exclusively by reliable members of the communist party, all of whom are excruciatingly aware that being politically inept usually means loss of job and family privileges. Given the advance videotaping of Lang's interview, it's impossible to believe Lang Lang's plans weren't known to the station's political cadre--and thus immediately to China's political rulers.

Okay, so the Chinese leadership was in on the "humiliation" (as various Chinese are putting it). Big deal--it's about the same degree of class and cleverness as hotel workers in vacation spots who smile as they insult tourists in a language the latter can't understand. Real sophomoric humor, and evidence of no class.

Now for a question: Did anyone in the Obama administration know this song was on the evening's program? If so, failure to recognize the planned insult would show either ineptitude or lack of communication between the dinner's planners and administration experts on Chinese culture. Either way, yet another evidence of incompetence.

Keep in mind that even though Lang is Chinese, the evening's entertainment was planned by Team Obama. One presumes the artist told them exactly what pieces he planned to play. So either the artist pulled a switch on them (but with the full knowledge of the Chinese delegation) or no member of Team Obama bothered to vet the planned play list. Either way...

It's a dilemma for Team Obama: Either admit incompetence or admit our biggest lenders were brazen enough to insult their messiah at the latter's own state dinner. Whoooo, wouldn't wanna have to choose which way to go on that!

But of course, our Democrat-loving media will never ask this of the Obamites, because it would be so embarrassing, so we'll never know.

Oh, wait...a reporter did ask both the White House and the Chinese embassy for comment. Neither returned the call.

Said reporter was not part of the mainstream media. But then you already guessed that.

UPDATE: Wikipedia is widely recognized as a heavily left-wing site masquerading as a neutral reference source. (That's for the 20-year-olds; all you experienced hands already knew that.) When Wiki weighs in on the *interpretation* of any event, you know you're reading the Left's approved narrative. So here's Wiki:

At the White House state dinner in honor of Chinese President Hu Jintao on January 19, Lang Lang played the theme song to the Korean War movie Battle on Shangganling Mountain...[33] Although the tune is popular and had lost much of its political and historical significances in China,[34] one of the lyric lines "we deal with wolves with guns" had been described as a direct reference to the United States.[35]

Commentators from The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal soon questioned Lang's music choice after the state dinner. Micheal [sic] Wines from the New York Times described the situation as "regrettable",[36] while Cathy Yan from the Wall Street Journals [sic] commented that Lang was "blissfully unaware unaware of the political minefield he was stumbling into".[33] In an interview broadcast on Phoenix TV, Lang Lang was quoted saying "I thought to play "My Motherland" because I think playing the tune at the White House banquet can help us, as Chinese people, feel extremely proud of ourselves and express our feelings through the song."

Today is Jan 23rd. The articles by Michael Wines and Cathy Yan were published on the 21st and 22nd, respectively. The two typos in the Wiki entry suggest how quickly the damage-control team rushed the addendum to the article into print.

Moreover, Yan's reassuring comment that Lang was "blissfully unaware unaware of the political minefield he was stumbling into" is contradicted by the Wiki author's very next sentence, in which Lang is quoted as to his reason for the choice: "can help us as Chinese people feel extremely proud of ourselves..."

Why proud? Ah, because in the film a village of outgunned Korean peasants--symbols of the glories of communist determination--holds off the nasty Americans.

Lang knew what he was doing. As did Hu. As did the Wiki author.

Now, let me say that personally, this sort of juvenile insult bothers me not a bit. I think it shows poor taste and bad manners by the Chinese, period. Unfortunately, in the rest of the world letting someone come into your house--historically the show home of the United States--and openly embarrass you, is seen as a display of dominance rather than simple bad manners. Moreover it conveys the message that the party delivering the insult feels completely safe from any reprimand, repercussion or retaliation.

And not only did 1.3 billion Chinese get this message, but so did 1.2 billion Muslims.

The perception of strength--and the willingness to use it--is far better than having to use it.

Friday, January 21

Stimulus money found?

Ever wonder what happened to the three quarters of a Trillion in stimulus funds the Obama administration spent over the past two years?

Of the three quarters of a trillion ($787 Billion) in "stimulus funds," a quarter of a trillion went to mortgage subsidies, tax credits for children, tax credits for college expenses and extending unemployment benefits. Most of the remaining half-trillion was given to state and local governments to fund specific projects.

I am able to look at San Francisco’s use of some $250 million in "stimulus funds" that the city received over a two-year period. This money came with a long list of projects it was supposed to fund. However, I found that none of the departments that were supposed to receive these funds showed any increase in their budget in either last year or the previous year. In fact in many of the departments that were supposed to receive "stimulus funds," budgets actually decreased.

Instead the entire amount of the so-called "stimulus"--$250 million dollars--was used to close the city's budget deficit--a deficit caused mainly by rapidly rising pension obligations to city employees.

The Left has destroyed lovely California

Victor Davis Hanson tries to make sense of why California’s left, after having ruined the state, is still waiting around for a handout. Why don’t they learn and mend their ways?

He likens the Left in California to the leftist groups of Greece who refuse to believe the party--generous government handouts for all--is over. After all, it's been going full blast for as long as anyone can remember. So it can’t be over.

[P]roperty...in the hands of the disbelievers is not considered to be rightfully theirs in our Islamic shari'ah because of their disbelief.

Translation: These crazy, inbred, rat bastard followers of a bloodthirsty megalomaniac just declared that Muslims have not just the right but the duty to steal from non-Muslims.

And notice please: This isn't a translation problem, or a report from an anonymous informant of questionable reliability. Rather, it's right there in print, in English, in the pages of their own damn magazine.

One of you liberals wanna' take a shot at explaining to the rest of us dumb rubes why this isn't really what they mean, or why it's really not a problem but is just a phrase taken out of context (ooooh, always gotta' consider the context) that's being blown out of proportion by crazy rightwingers?

Anybody?

All I'm hearin' right now are crickets.

Moreover, for those of you who think "shari'ah law" is just fine (since liberal pencil-necks have been telling us for years that all cultures are equal), the Muslim author has just claimed that the command that Muslims should steal from non-Muslims is an integral part of shari'ah law.

So if your state hasn't already done so, now would be a great time to consider amending your state's constitution to provide that no court or government entity or agent shall consider any non-U.S. law--specifically including shari'ah law--when making an official decision or taking an official action.

We may not be able to get the federal government to do the right thing, but getting 30 or 35 states to man up would be a big help.

Wednesday, January 19

Union-praising magazine publisher's staff joins UAW

Seems Harper's Magazine is in financial trouble, losing money hand over fist. (No, that's not the funny part.) Its "publisher and patron," John MacArthur--heir to a ceramics fortune--has been keeping it afloat by injecting cash from his own pocket.

In 2009 he paid $4.4 million to keep the mag going. So he clearly has a big stake in the enterprise.

MacArthur is a total liberal, and has staunchly defended unions. In fact, in a 2009 Harper's piece he called the UAW “the country’s best and traditionally most honest mass labor organization.”

(If you have trouble seeing "best and most honest" in the same sentence with "UAW," you're not alone.)

Anyway, MacArthur--tired of having to pump money into the mag year after year--has been trying to cut costs by trimming staff. This ticked off the staff, and they responded by (here's the funny part) voting to join a union.

Now, there's a union called the Newspaper Guild of America, so you'd think....Nah, too logical. Instead the staff voted to join...the UAW.

Mac then tried to have his senior editorial staff classified as "management," thus preventing them from joining the union. This would have allowed the mag to keep publishing in the event of a strike.

The editors made a formal complaint, and the issue went to that bastion of left-wing symps, the NLRB. Which ruled against MacArthur. So his editors are now members of the union.

So MacArthur is now caught in a trap set by his own leftist politics: He can't continue to try various cost-cutting moves without triggering a strike. In particular, he can't fire the two editors who spearheaded the unionization drive without paying a HUGE penalty, since the union will claim "retaliation."

Finally, if he were to sell his stake in the mag he'd get just pennies on the dollar (if he got any offer at all) since the mag is a money pit *and* is now unionized.

A less ideological person would simply shut down the mag and leave the wanna-be-king former employees unemployed--at a time when the entire magazine industry is in a layoff mode. That would be some major poetic justice.

But if he did that Mac would be admitting that the unions he'd praised so highly for so long had snookered him--and somehow I get the idea that he'd rather spend every cent he inherited before he'd admit his praise was totally misplaced--equivalent to the nonsensical ramblings of a child.

So...there he'll sit, writing big checks every year to pay the salaries of the folks who have effectively stolen his business and yet continue to collect their salaries from his personal bank account.

That is *some* lesson. Wonder if he or any other rich leftist will get it?

Tuesday, January 18

NAACP boxes off statue of Washington--or did they?

Yesterday, on the day commemorating ML king, in Columbia, South Carolina the NAACP held a rally on the steps of the state capitol.

As it happens, there is a statue of a fellow by the name of "George Washington" more or less in the center of those steps.

The rally's organizers put the platform for the speakers and dignitaries on the steps.

The organizers built a black box around three sides of Washington's statue, walling it off from the crowd's line of sight. According to NAACP spokesmen this was not intended as an insult to Washington.

A picture of this odd 3-sided black box was posted by various bloggers on the net. At that point several commenters suggested that the story might be false, and the photo posted on various blogs simply a photoshop crafted by RightWingExtremists to arouse the tea partiers.

What do you think?

The link in the first 'graf above takes you to the website of the Columbia, S.C. paper, where you'll see a wide-angle picture of the rally. You can zoom in and pan around. See what you find.

If conservatives or tea partiers boxed up a statue of Dr. King or some other hugely important black figure, it would be front-page news on the NYT and WaPo for days.

Let's see what happens with this story.

I'll go out on a limb and predict you won't see a word of it in the NYT or WaPo or LAT.

Cuz after all, it's so over-the-top that it simply has to be a photoshop job.

Just like the shooter in Arizona was a rightwing nutjob. Yeh, dat's da ticket.

Monday, January 17

When is stealing NOT stealing? When it's done by Democrats.

Last Friday the Washington Post ran an article titled "JFK's own dirty trick." According to the story, during the 1960 presidential campaign a disgruntled accountant told Kennedy's advisors that Howard Hughes had given Nixon's family $200,000. Kennedy's advisors knew if they could find evidence documenting this, friendly reporters would run the story, damaging Nixon.

The disgruntled accountant knew exactly where the evidence was, and days later "a break-in occurred" at the account's former office.

With the stolen evidence in hand, muckraking reporters Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson ran the story just days before the election--and Kennedy won by a razor-thin margin.

Here's the funny part: Even though this happened over 50 years ago, the author of last week's WaPo article just cannot bring himself to say that his beloved Kennedys or their advisors commissioned anyone to "steal" documents to swing the election. Instead here's the author's wrap-up paragraph:

Indeed, the mysterious break-in to recover Nixon's incriminating financial documents convinced him that such burglaries were standard practice in national politics. Nixon vowed that he would never be caught unprepared again...

Did you catch that? The purpose of the break-in, says the WaPo author, was merely to recover the incriminating documents.

Because stealing would clearly be wrong. Sort of like breaking into an office.

Whereas "recovering" something is so much more...positive.

Okay, now for the twist: How many of you had heard of that event before now?

[crickets]

The lamestream media has always prided itself on its ability to swing elections, and their success in 1960 certainly reinforced that idea. It's telling that even 50 years later leftoids still can't honestly describe what they did to win.

Lucky for the country that they've stopped using dirty tricks to steal elections. [/sarc]

Islamic wackos ban women from...you name it. U.S. Left silent

NAIROBI (Reuters) – Women living in areas controlled by Somalia’s Islamists say they are increasingly the target of more draconian rules meted out by the rebels bent on enforcing their ideologies.

In the latest decree by the al Qaeda-linked al Shabaab group that governs most of southern Somalia, women in the seaside town of Kismayu have been banned from carrying out barter trade with the male crews of ships calling at the port.

The women have also been told they cannot shake any male’s hands in public, travel on their own, sell anything or work in an office.

“A woman cannot be seen with a man from another country at the port. The punishment for any woman caught near the port or foreign vessels will be arrest,” a senior al Shabaab commander said in a statement this week.

The al Shabaab group — which means “the youth” in Arabic — have in the past banned movies, musical ringtones, dancing at wedding ceremonies and watching soccer.

So...if you know a stupid leftist who's ever spouted that "all cultures are equally valid" crap, send 'em this link. Ask yourself what kind of leadership bans musical ringtones or watching soccer. Or bans women from traveling alone, selling anything or working in an office.

If your leftist acquaintance persists in claiming all cultures are equally valid, I suggest it shows they are fundamentally unserious about any kind of meaningful debate. The kind of person who insists that the sun revolves around the Earth, or that humans have never been to the moon.

Another empty Obama promise, made to get elected

This, of course, didn't happen. And from looking at all the other scheming and skullduggery used by Obama, Reid, Pelosi and the Dems to pass that piece of crap, it seems virtually certain that Obama never intended to actually honor that promise.

Monday, January 10

Leftists commit REAL assaults, blame the Right

In the wake of the Arizona shooting by a deranged 22-year-old, the Left--and its wholly-owned subsidiary, the U.S. "mainstream media"--instantly blamed Sarah Palin and conservatives in general. The rap was that Palin had implicitly threatened a number of congresscritters by posting a webpage with gun-sight cross-hairs on their districts.

See, to Leftists, using crosshairs in an ad--even when there's nothing IN the crosshairs--is violence.

Warning: Do NOT click on the above link if you have high blood pressure. Seriously, watching this much hate--by people who claim to be fellow Americans-- in a short time period can seriously mess up your day.

Leftist policies have destroyed California

Victor Davis Hanson tries to make sense of why California’s left, after having ruined the state, is still waiting around for a handout. Why don’t they learn and mend their ways?

He likens the Left in California to the leftist groups of Greece who refuse to believe the party--generous government handouts for all--is over. After all, it's been going full blast for as long as anyone can remember. So it can’t be over.

Tuesday, January 4

Numbers mean something

Most folks don't like numbers. But if you don't understand what numbers mean, you can end up failing to recognize some potentially fatal problems. For example, a pilot who sees the altimeter reading 8000 feet and the vertical velocity reading 10,000 feet per minute downward has about one second to act or he's dead--along with all his passengers.

Now consider the following graph--our national debt plotted over the last 60 years or so:

Liberals/democrats/Constitution-trashers ("We can do anything we want because the Constitution has a 'general-welfare' clause") will either say this graph means nothing or will put fingers firmly in ears and scream "LA LA LA LA LA--I can't hear you!"

Don't let them get away with that. Make them explain why they believe this graph is really no big deal, no problem.

"Raising debt limit is a sign of leadership failure."

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on...financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally.

Leadership means [old platitude here]. Instead Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

That was freshman Senator Obama in 2006, when the U.S. Senate was about to vote on extending the federal debt ceiling. Back then, some of you may recall, we had a Republican president. So it's not surprising that Obama was eager to condemn what he called "reckless fiscal policies" since Republican held the White House.

And sure enough, in 2006 Obama voted against raising the ceiling.

Principles, y'know.

Oh, and for the record: When Obama took office our national debt was just over $10 trillion. Yesterday it reached $14 trillion--an increase of 40 percent in just two years.

Senator Obama nailed it in 2006: "America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

Of course that was before he was elected to the highest office in the country.

Monday, January 3

Illinois facing huge budget shortfall

Making a welfare state work out financially would seem to be almost impossible.

Trying to make a welfare state work when run by a legendarily corrupt government is ridiculous.

Take, for example, Illinois: the inept or corrupt legislators and executive-branch appointees of that woeful pit have a "general fund" of $26 Billion, and are just $13 Billion short of covering all their proposed expenditures.

That is, the shortfall is roughly half their proposed budget.

But hey, let's increase the freebies we pay out. Or let's have Washington impose a bunch of new requirements on the states that will cost the states more money. Yeah, dat's da ticket.

Is there anyone on the planet who thinks this style of government can be sustained?

Saturday, January 1

Leftist: Bush book selling so well because "More people hated Bush!"

George W. Bush's book has reportedly sold almost as many copies in two months as Bill Clinton's book did in two years.

Naturally this news has liberals foaming at the mouth--and they're desperately trying to find some explanation that will save face for their side--and ideally, denigrate Bush and conservatism (not that the two had much in common).

So what magic theory did they devise to do this? They interviewed some goofy leftist "political writer" who opined that the reason for Bush's better sales is that...so many people hated Bush!

I don't know about y'all but I always buy a copy of the memoirs of people I dislike. I mean, it's absolutely natural. Reeeally. Right.

If you're a Democrat I wouldn't blame you for thinking I just made up this story. I mean, the purported explanation so utterly, transparently ridiculous that one would think it would have to be fiction. So click on this link and see for yourselves.

Of course it's always possible that the interview with this goofball was a setup by somebody like Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly because they knew the goofball would spout this particular theory. Except it was done by...MSNBC, which loves Dems and Obama.

About Me

Ex-AF pilot. While airliners are very safe, flying a single-pilot jet can be extremely demanding, especially in bad weather. It's a *huge* tribute to engineers that today's commercial jetliners are so amazingly safe!